sshand

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.3
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: host inventory management, file transfer, command execution, directory listing, and connection testing. There is no functional overlap between any two tools.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow the 'ssh_verb_noun' pattern consistently (e.g., ssh_add_host, ssh_list_hosts, ssh_run_command). The naming is uniform and predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the set covers all essential SSH operations without being excessive. The count is well within the typical 3-15 range for a focused server.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface provides CRUD for hosts, remote command execution, file read/write/upload/download, directory listing, and connection testing. The only minor gap is the lack of an update host tool, but this can be worked around.
Average 4.6/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 16 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses supported authentication methods, parameter dependencies, and returns success/error, though annotations are minimal; misses details on side effects or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples); slightly verbose but each sentence adds value for a 10-parameter tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers all parameters, examples, and return type; lacks details about the hosts.yaml format or persistence, but sufficient for a registration tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, constraints, and conditional requirements (e.g., key_path for 'key' auth).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Register a new SSH host') and the storage location ('hosts.yaml'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ssh_remove_host or ssh_list_hosts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides examples for different auth types and explains the overwrite parameter, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it uses SFTP and returns an error on failure, which is useful but not extensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and no unnecessary information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, parameters, return type, and provides examples. An output schema exists, so return details are handled. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: alias, remote_path, and encoding. It provides examples and default behavior, adding significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Read the contents of a file on a remote SSH host.' This is a specific verb and resource. Among siblings like ssh_list_directory and ssh_download_file, it is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions suitability for config files, logs, scripts, and binary files with encoding='raw'. It provides context for when to use, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like ssh_download_file for transfers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (not read-only, not destructive, idempotent, open world), the description adds that local parent directories are automatically created and indicates return format (success with byte count or error). It does not specify overwrite behavior, but no contradictions with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: a concise summary, behavioral note, parameter details, return description, and examples. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every part adds value without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers parameter semantics, automatic directory creation, return format, and examples. It does not discuss overwrite behavior or authentication, but given idempotentHint and sibling tools for host management, these are not critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics: alias is source host alias, remote_path is absolute POSIX path, local_path includes format differences across OS and advice on calling ssh_get_local_info. Examples further clarify usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool downloads a file from a remote SSH host to the local machine via SFTP, specifying direction and method. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_read_file (content reading) and ssh_upload_file (uploading), and includes automatic local directory creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises calling ssh_get_local_info for path format guidance and provides examples. It implicitly suggests when to use (file transfer from remote to local) but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or contrast with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it returns a formatted list or message if empty, with response format options. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with 3 main sentences plus structured Args/Returns/Examples. Every sentence is informative, and the purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers functionality, return value, parameter usage, and gives examples. No gaps for this complexity level.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains the response_format parameter: 'markdown (default) for a readable table, or json for structured data'. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the enum listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'List all SSH hosts registered in the inventory' and enumerates the fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling SSH tools that perform other operations like add, remove, or file operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description advises 'Call this first when you don't know what machines are available', providing clear context. It does not explicitly list exclusions but the context makes usage intuitive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that removal is permanent and local-only. This supplements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short paragraphs, each serving a purpose: main action, important caveat, and parameter/return info. No extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, side effects, parameter meaning, and return value adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes 'alias: The host alias to remove,' which adds meaning to the single required parameter. With 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well-provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove a host from the SSH inventory permanently') and the resource ('host'), distinguishing it from siblings like ssh_add_host or ssh_list_hosts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly notes that removal only affects the local config and does not touch the remote server, providing clear context on when to use the tool. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the scope is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details: uses SFTP, automatically creates missing parent directories, and handles two encoding modes. This provides context beyond annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized: summary sentence, mechanism, args in list format, return type, and examples. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, resulting in an efficient and readable definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameters, encoding handling, return format, and examples. Combined with annotations and schema, an agent has sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It provides terse but sufficient descriptions for all four parameters (alias, remote_path, content, encoding) and clarifies the default encoding. While not exhaustive, it adds meaning beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Write content to a file on a remote SSH host (create or overwrite).' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like ssh_read_file (read) and ssh_download_file (download from remote), making the tool's unique role obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides concrete examples (cron job, config, script) and explains how to handle binary content via base64 encoding. It does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ssh_upload_file, which slightly reduces guidance, but the examples and encoding details still offer solid usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds behavioral details such as sorting order (directories first, then alphabetically) and default path handling, providing useful context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: an initial summary sentence, followed by clear sections for args, returns, and examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all aspects: parameter meanings, return format (both markdown and JSON), sorting behavior, and practical examples. It is fully adequate for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter (alias, remote_path, limit, response_format) with details and examples, fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists directory contents on a remote SSH host, with a specific set of attributes (file names, types, sizes, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_read_file and ssh_run_command by focusing on directory listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains what the tool does and provides examples, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though this is implicit from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes exit code, stdout/stderr capture, sudo behavior, and non-persistent cwd state. Annotations already include destructiveHint=true; description adds useful context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with Args, Returns, Examples. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive for a command execution tool: explains return values, timeout limits, response_format options, and provides multiple examples. Output schema exists but description covers key behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including constraints, defaults, and examples (e.g., timeout max 3600, cwd usage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Execute a shell command on a remote SSH host and return the output.' Differentiates from sibling tools like ssh_add_host or ssh_list_directory.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implicitly defines usage via examples and sibling context; lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but purpose is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the remote parent directory is created automatically. It also describes the return format (success message with byte count). Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description complements them well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, all are thoroughly described. Return value is explained, and examples provide practical context. No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter explanations for all three parameters, including format requirements for local_path (native OS) and remote_path (POSIX), and examples. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool uploads a local file to a remote SSH host via SFTP, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_download_file, which downloads files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (deploy configs, binaries, large files) and advises calling ssh_get_local_info first if unsure about local path format. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not contradict these and adds details about the return fields (os, home, cwd, path_style) and the two response formats. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond what annotations imply, but the description is consistent and informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured. It begins with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, non-destructive, read-only), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, return fields, and examples. The inclusion of an output schema is noted, but the description itself is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, response_format, is documented with its default value and enum options in the 'Args' section of the description. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fully carries the burden of explaining the parameter, which it does adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns OS, home directory, cwd, and path style of the MCP server machine. It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_upload_file and ssh_download_file by explicitly stating when to call it beforehand.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Call this before ssh_upload_file or ssh_download_file to discover the correct local_path format' and also mentions debugging path errors. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and the context for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that the tool 'Attempts to open an SSH session and run a trivial echo command.' This clarifies the non-destructive, read-only nature consistent with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise. It opens with a clear purpose, then breaks down into usage, parameter explanation, return values, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (single parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is complete. It covers the action, prerequisite, return format, and provides examples. No gaps remain for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With one parameter and 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates: 'alias: Host alias to test (must exist in inventory).' This provides clear semantics and a prerequisite, making the parameter meaningful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify that a host is reachable and authentication succeeds.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_run_command and ssh_add_host by focusing solely on connectivity and credential verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use this immediately after ssh_add_host to confirm your credentials are correct.' Examples illustrate typical use cases, and the description implies when to use (e.g., debugging). No contradictory or missing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sshand MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/muradmalik23/sshand/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/muradmalik23/sshand)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sshand MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/muradmalik23/sshand/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/muradmalik23/sshand)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/muradmalik23/sshand'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server